In the longer extension? I havent had all of the buffer-spring-extensions in hand to measure.Originally Posted by Todd.K
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
In the longer extension? I havent had all of the buffer-spring-extensions in hand to measure.
Member
Right. The BCG travels the same distance but doesn't stop as abruptly as with the carbine recoil system.
Senior Member
Question similar to Trajan's, but I'll go into more detail: as I understand the A5 setup, you are getting a heavier buffer (rifle buffer weight), an A2 buffer spring, and the operating distance is the same as with other setups, which is (I believe) limited by not allowing the carrier key to hit the butt end of the upper (as well as the top of the lower and the receiver extension tube).
However, a standard rifle A2 buffer weighs 5.2 oz. An H3 carbine buffer weighs 5.4 oz. Couldn't you get the same performance as the A5 system by using an H3 buffer and a reduced power spring? Your buffer weight would be slightly heavier, the reduced power spring would compare to a rifle spring, and operating travel of the setup is the same in all systems. Wouldn't this work? If not, why not?
Member
You might be onto something there. It would seem that a spring with the A2 specs, but shorter in length, would do what you're thinking. As long as the spring was dimensioned to have the same pre-load as the A2, and the buffer had the same amount of travel, a given, I can't see whay it wouldn't work. Somebody will probably show me why, though. Now, to get someone to make the correct spring. Maybe an A2 spring, shortened and with the end ground flat, would do the trick. I'll be the guinea pig for this one as soon as I get a new A2 spring at a gun show this weekend.
The only thing you wouldn't have with this system is the extra length of the A5/AR10 buffer tube, but most people don't need that extra 3/4" anyway. It would require that special spring, but that should be a lot cheaper than a new buffer and buffer tube.
One drawback might be trying to duplicate the A5H3 and A5H4 buffers. Slash could make a heavier than H3 buffer, but it wouldn't be any more cost effective than using the Vltor system.
Last edited by M90A1; 02-17-11 at 16:56.
Senior Member
Wolff already offers a reduced power carbine buffer spring, item #16502:
http://www.gunsprings.com/index.cfm?...2&mID=1&dID=79
I don't know how much the power is reduced or how it would relate to stiffness of an A2 spring.
I'm probably missing some reason why there really is a difference with the A5 setup (vs. my H3 buffered concept), but I'm curious to hear what it is.
Senior Member
The A5 buffer is longer as well.
Member
But, wasn't that only to make up for the longer buffer tube.
Last edited by M90A1; 02-17-11 at 17:19.
Senior Member
There is absolutely no doubt that a rifle stock/recoil system runs softer than a carbine recoil system on the same gun. If the A5 mimics the feel of the A2, it will be an improvement over a carbine system (subject to the views of the user, no doubt).
I had my old A2 stock out a few days ago on a middy upper before deciding on what stock system to buy for a new build; and decided the A5 conversion is worth a try. I'll test it on the range tomorrow.
Member
I think I duplicated what you're thinking about, but took a different tack. Your way would be easier and cheaper. What I did was use an AR10 buffer tube, with a spacer in the rear of the tube that made up the difference in the length of the A5 buffer and an H3. Then I used the H3 buffer and the A2 spring. I tried my setup this past weekend and compared it to an A5 system. I obviously had no way to take measurements, but by feel alone, I couldn't tell any difference and everything worked just fine. I used the same upper on two different lowers to have as few variables as possible, one with my setup and one with the A5.
Last edited by M90A1; 02-17-11 at 17:35.
Member
Think of it this way:
The rifle spring is in a tube shorter than a rifle tube.
This increases the pre-load on the BCG versus a rifle setup. The preload is higher than a rifle, but lower than a carbine setup.
The rifle spring when fully compressed has the same load no matter what, but the length of the A5 buffer isn't *exactly* the same as the rifle one, so it compresses a bit farther.
The solid load of the a5 system is higher than for a rifle, but lower than for a carbine.
All sounds good doesn't it? Basically, it takes more to unseat the BCG than a rifle, but not near as much as a carbine, and the spring is soaking up more energy but doesn't require as much force to bottom out.
Now, the real kicker is that the difference in loads between pre-load and bottomed out is smaller than with a carbine.
What does that mean?
A spring increases it's load linearly (in a perfect world). Which means the first inch might take 2 lbs to compress, the second inch takes 4 lbs, etc. The A5 system doesn't 'stack' as quickly. This means that for variances in the initial BCG velocity (based upon loads, gas system, etc) the BCG responds similarly. This provides consistency to the system. It also extends the shot-to-shot time, meaning you're doing the same amount of work over more time, which means more energy dissipated. This means more time for the gun to do it's thing, and also since the 'recoil work' is the same (mass times muzzle velocity = recoil momentum) but the buffer system is taking longer to deal with that work, means a lower applied force. This results in a 'softer' feeling recoil impulse. It also equates to consistency.
The carbine runs into issues because it is trying to accomplish too much, too fast. When the buffer bottoms out in the tube, it transfers more recoil - when it doesn't, it short-strokes. The A5 system reduces these potentials because more energy can be absorbed by a rifle spring and the whole system is slowed down due to the increased pre-load.
Okay, so it slows things down - this will increase the probability of short stroking, right? Wrong - the pre-load is higher, but because the final compressed load is lighter, the rate is lower. This means that a lighter loading will still cycle the gun, because while it takes more force to unseat the bolt, the spring doesn't 'ramp up' as fast with regard to applied BCG force. Neat, huh?
Basically, it brings rifle-type operation to a carbine-type platform while only increasing the overall length of the system by less than an inch.
VLTOR also claims some internal voodoo with regard to the buffer which they claim helps the operation of the buffer with regard to bolt-bounce. This only affects full-auto guys though, right? Wrong. Bolt bounce contributes to inconsistent chambering of the next round, which leads to a reduction in accuracy. Though VLTOR doesn't claim it publicly, I've heard tell that the system has proven to tighten groups on otherwise well-shooting weapons. I don't think it will turn a turd into a match-grade rifle, but when you're exhausting all possibilities in the pursuit of accuracy - one has to admit, eliminating bolt bounce is just making the rifle that much more precise.
/lecture.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks